Case No. 7 Director of Lands vs. Kalahi Investment, Inc.

Facts: Kalahi Investment, Inc is an investment company with interest in mining. They found valuable mineral deposits in Floridablanca, Pampanga. As a locator who found the mineral deposits in lot no. 1851-B, Kalahi intended to have it registered and titled, but the Bureau of Lands represented by its Director contended that they cannot have it registered for lot no. 1851 is a vast mountain ranges. Kalahi, abandoned its previous claim over the land and limited it to lot no. 1 of Plan sgs-3690, which contains an area of 1,730 square meters formerly lot no. 1851-B. Since the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation no. 82 on August 9, 1966 declaring it as Mount Dorst Forest Reserve through the recommendation of the Director of Lands and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Their application for registration of the lot was opposed by the Director of Lands from the Court of the First Instance of Pampanga. Hence their application was denied, so they elevated it to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not mining claims acquired, registered, perfected and patentable under the old mining law mature to private ownership thereof. Held: The Supreme Court held that mere does not mean absolute ownership of the land. It merely segregates the located land from other who would want to be locator for themselves. Furthermore, under P.D. 1214 promulgated on October 14, 1977 directing holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims, lode or places, located under the provision of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 to file a mining lease application, within one year from the approval of the said decree. Records show that Kalahi has already filed a mining lease application with the Bureau of Mines. Wherefore the decision of the Court of the First Instance of Pampanga is affirmed by the Supreme Court with modification that Kalahi may proceed with the mining lease application with the Bureau of Mines.

Case No. 8 Republic v. Enciso, GR No. 160145, November 11, 2005

Facts: The respondent, alleging to be the owner in fee simple of a parcel of residential land located in Zambales, filed a petition for land registration before the RTC of Iba, Zambales. He acquired title to the said lot by virtue of an extrajudicial settlement of estate and quitclaim on March 15, 1999; the said property is not tenanted or occupied by any person other than the respondent and his family who are in actual physical possession of the same for 30 years. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application on the following grounds: (a) neither the respondent nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (b) the respondent failed to adduce any muniment of title and/or the tax declaration (c) the alleged tax declaration adverted to in the application does not appear to be genuine and the tax declarations indicate such possession to be of recent vintage; (d) the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of by the respondent considering that he failed to file an appropriate application for registration within the period of six months from February 16, 1976 as required by P.D. No. 892; and (e) the subject land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines which is not subject to private appropriation.[5]

Issue: For reclaimed land to be registered as private property what is required? Held: (1) There must be a proof that the land had been classified as alienable; (2) The person seeking registration must showproof of having acquired the property (e.g., by prescription). Well-entrenched is the rule that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. Bare allegations, without more, do not amount to preponderant evidence that would shift the burden to the oppositor.[28] Evidently, the respondent failed to prove that the lot was classified as part of the disposable and alienable land of the public domain; and (2) he and his predecessors-in-

interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owners since time immemorial, or from June 12, 1945.